[MD] The Moral Landscape

[ADRIE KINTZIGER]

plattholden at gmail.com aan moq_discuss
details weergeven 00:33 (2 minuten geleden)

Hi Mark,

I couldn't agree with you more. You have deftly revealed what's behind the
curtain of science's claim to "truth." What's true is what Pirsig observed:
"Science has no values. Not officially." Just as it is impossible for a
calculator to calculate itself, it's impossible for a discipline that has no
values to comprehend values.

The only thing a calculator does is calculating itself all the time, i can
not reproduce itself,nor reprogram itself
Good idea , platt, to put Mark forth on the playfield, hoping to trigger him
into one of his events, nice prank.

Best,
platt



2010/10/20 <plattholden at gmail.com>

> Hi Mark,
>
> I couldn't agree with you more. You have deftly revealed what's behind the
> curtain of science's claim to "truth." What's true is what Pirsig observed:
> "Science has no values. Not officially." Just as it is impossible for a
> calculator to calculate itself, it's impossible for a discipline that has
> no
> values to comprehend values.
>
> Best,
> Platt
>
>
>
> On 19 Oct 2010 at 9:46, 118 wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Steven Peterson
> <peterson.steve at gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > Hi Marsha,
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:11 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Steve,
> > >
> > > When you state "Our claims about morality can have truth-value
> > > and be as objective as our scientific claims."  are you talking
> > > about some definition of scientific objectivism?
> >
> > Steve:
>
> I'm promoting pragmatic anti-skepticism. I'm saying that we not not be
> > any more skeptical about moral truth than we are about scientific
> > truth. Anyone objecting to moral truth as not resting on firm
> > foundations similar to those of scientific claims can be shown that
> > moral claims in fact do not suffer by comparison to scientific ones in
> > terms of epistemic grounding. All the criticisms typically made for
> > the possibility of moral knowledge can be shown to apply equally to
> > scientific knowledge that we are not skeptical about.
> >
>
>  Hi Steve,
> In my experience, science is based on skepticism, asking questions, trying
> to disprove.  It is important to be skeptical about scientific truths else
> wise we do not advance.  The practical applications of scientific methods
> are meant to uncover truth, not define it.  I would go so far as to say
> that
> science presents a false notion of truth.
>
> The foundations of science are not necessarily firm, they are accepted.  If
> we are not skeptical about scientific knowledge it is due to the profound
> indoctrination and resulting faith in its dogma.  Such a thing is termed
> Scientism.  This is not railing against science per se, it is a judgement
> against its applications to areas where it does not belong.
>
> Science is based on a system of equality through measurement.  The accurate
> measurement of truth lies outside in the regions of religion or philosophy
> or just plain common sense.  Such truth is not derived through scientific
> methods, but through more intuitive approaches.  Our communication with
> Quality at a fundamental level is not measurable, it creates the concept of
> measurement itself.  It is impossible for a calculator to calculate itself.
>
> Regards,
> Mark
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>



-- 
parser